[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Angelo Bertolli]

Nate Duehr wrote:
> Kinds nice to see someone debating on the jobs the President actually 
> is responsible for...
>
> Most of the crap both guys are promising aren't controlled by them.
>
> They're things created and voted on by the Congress.
Yes, technically, but the President has a lot of power.  You can argue 
that this is where power is concentrated the most in one person.  After 
all, the power of veto forces Congress to work with the President unless 
they can be more unified.  And that doesn't really happen.  So a lot of 
the important controversial issues like the budget, economics, and 
reforms are just as much the domain of the President in reality.  What 
Congress really needs to be blamed for is inaction:  not coming up with 
enough good no-brainers that aren't controversial.

> This election is really about either complete loss of the built in 
> checks and balances in our government with one party controlling all 
> three branches of government for four years and the Judicial by way of 
> the Supreme Court for the natural lifespan of their appointee who will 
> not be anywhere close to the political center...

I kind of got the impression that the House Republicans were more 
traditional Republicans that at least gave some checks and balances ;)

> Or voting to leave a single check and balance by way of veto power in 
> the hands of a man proven to be a centrist and an unquestioned patriot.
>
> The Congress has already HAD the power to enact "real change" via 
> their majority for a while now and hasn't used it, because they know 
> at least 30-40% or more of the country would cry foul on their behavior.
Are you talking about the more recent slight Democrat majority, or the 
previous Republican?  Or both?  Sometimes I really wonder how scared 
they are even if 30-40% gets upset.  One thing I wish they would change 
are the rules about redrawing districts.  Not only does it create a kind 
of political cartel, but I'm sure they probably waste a lot of time 
doing that when they could be worrying about other things.

> With a "party line" excuse to hide behind, we had better hope their 
> constituants are paying REALLY close attention to the laws being snuck 
> through on other bills if the veto power isn't there.
>
> If they don't, some really bad legislation will not only be passed but 
> by the time it is "tested" in our courts, the new Justice will uphold it.
>
> A very pecarious time, and a lot more important than just voting for 
> the "popular" candidate.
>
> This article at least focuses on one of the REAL Constitutional "jobs" 
> of the Office of President of the United States and not the populist 
> stuff in the 30 minute "He even makes his own gravy!" infomercial seen 
> on TV last night from the soon to be in full control party.

Hmmm, I try to avoid reading or watching too much that is clearly a 
one-sided opinion.  Sometimes it's good, but I really don't need to be 
lied to or the truth stretched.  I'm much more interested in the 
opinions of respected "neutrals" who have an education in economics.  I 
really like to hear what they say about the issue itself, when they're 
not endorsing someone.  That way I can at least try to make a more 
intelligent decision.

Angelo